Relic FYI, UKF's emplacements are useless due to ISG's

ISG's barely do any damage to them. It takes a long time to wittle it down.

And if his ISG is shooting your bofors, it's not shooting your infantry.

Coh2 chart show us that Brit have more winrate than OKW and OST in 1v1 and 2v2, so its not all about "Aimstrong", 149 others players can make it, everyone can make it.

Maybe this is because they have only just released, and people are still learning to play against them?

IMO the emplacements design are totally failed. The biggest problem is they are all immobile.So fck this,it means all indirect fire can easily barrage them.What they can do is waiting for death. I always don't like the immobile units.

IMO the emplacements design are totally failed. The biggest problem is they are all immobile.So fck this,it means all indirect fire can easily barrage them.What they can do is waiting for death. I always don't like the immobile units.

"The biggest problem with emplacements is that they are immobile."



Thanks COH2.org forums, I needed that laugh.

The biggest problem with emplacements is that they are a population expense you can't recover.

As for the Brits late game, I can see a lot of their late game units that are considered OP being nerfed in the near future, which will just highlight the problems with them in the early-mid game.

If the Brits are supposed to be defensive (but with optional offensive play), then I would suggest the following changes:
- Bofors and 17-pounder are built empty and need to be manned (and can therefore be unmanned). The crew required would be 3 (Bofors) or 4 (17-pounder) but the pop cap counts as triple (e.g. 9 for Bofors, 12 for 17-pounder) while they are manned.
- Minesweeper REs should be able to "salvage" (for 25% return) any British emplacement or trench
- Replace mortar emplacement with mortar support team
- Anvil tactics enables 6-pounders and mortar teams to "dig in" - giving current emplacement bonuses.
- Hammer tactics enables UCs to reinforce (like half-tracks) after upgrading for this specific purpose. An upgraded UC has more armour but no more offensive ability.

As it stands, I almost never buy a UC because they are far too vulnerable to a casual faust shot - it is just a waste of munitions.

Actually, biggest problem with emplacements is, mortar pit is completely unable to cover them from indirect fire(lets put aside one hit kill incendiary mortar shell for now as its another can of worms).

Static emplacement shouldn't be that easily hardcountered by mobile indirect fire piece, but that won't change unless ISG will get range nerf or mortar pit range buff(light shells-never forget), both of these seem unlikely.

Static emplacement shouldn't be that easily hardcountered by mobile indirect fire piece, but that won't change unless ISG will get range nerf or mortar pit range buff(light shells-never forget), both of these seem unlikely.

Yes, because such a brainless change would mean instawin for the mortar pit for the simple reason it is more durable than the ISG. Imagine 2 balistic weapons, one entranched, the other one not, firing at each other within the same range. Who will win in 99,99% of cases? Can you try to give me a simple straight answer to this, without your usual blabbering?

Yes, because such a brainless change would mean instawin for the mortar pit for the simple reason it is more durable than the ISG. Imagine 2 balistic weapons, one entranched, the other one not, firing at each other within the same range. Who will win in 99,99% of cases? Can you try to give me a simple straight answer to this, without your usual blabbering?

I will ask you a question in return:

Why do you think cheaper, mobile ballistic weapon should hardcounter more expensive, static one without the latter being able t retaliate is in any way balanced?

I will ask you a question in return:

Why do you think cheaper, mobile ballistic weapon should hardcounter more expensive, static one without the latter being able t retaliate is in any way balanced?

1. Define "hardcounter". Exactly how many ISG shots kill a mortar pit? How many ISGs do you need to kill a mortar pit before it inflicts some serious damage to your army? Now, the same question while mortar pit is using "brace" ability.
2. Your question is the story of axis life in COH2, extended to many units.

1. Define "hardcounter". Exactly how many ISG shots kill a mortar pit? How many ISGs do you need to kill a mortar pit before it inflicts some serious damage to your army? Now, the same question while mortar pit is using "brace" ability.

Its completely irrelevant, it could be one shot, it could be 100 shots, as long as mortar pit can't shoot back at ISG, its hardcountered by it, there really isn't much to discuss on this matter.

2. Your question is the story of axis life in COH2, extended to many units.

All that ZiS-3 AT superiority.
That soviet stock mortar being superior to ost one.
That T34 superiority over P4.
And so on and so forth.

Double standards is awesome thing to have!

I will ask you a question in return:

Why do you think cheaper, mobile ballistic weapon should hardcounter more expensive, static one without the latter being able t retaliate is in any way balanced?

Bad one dude... unless you're trying to imply that the isg has the same hp as mortar pit and also has brace, your argument is invalid. You can easily capture isgs by rushing them. Pit gets rushed? Brace! Now i have a 30 second window to get something over to defend it. But yeah... totally underpowered. Especially when put into positions where isgs can't shoot at them because of shotblockers.

Its completely irrelevant, it could be one shot, it could be 100 shots, as long as mortar pit can't shoot back at ISG, its hardcountered.

Doesn't ISG and Mortar pit have the same range? Shouldn't be a problem on the range, more on the rate of fire.

"The biggest problem with emplacements is that they are immobile."



Thanks COH2.org forums, I needed that laugh.

You just can't make it up.

Its completely irrelevant, it could be one shot, it could be 100 shots, as long as mortar pit can't shoot back at ISG, its hardcountered.

Just what I thought. The sunset of the reason.

Just what I thought. The sunset of the reason.

See, thats why you aren't game balance designer and why you'll never be.

I also find it hilariously funny that you try to talk about reason as not a single of your balance related posts have any of it.

If there are 2 units and one can't fight the other at all, then that is the very definition of hardcounter, your bias won't change it.

A single ISG can't kill a mortar emplacement, 2 of them can. Also ISG's range even at vet1 is the same as mortar pit's, so it can definitely fire back.

The problem is, 2 ISGs killing it doesn't make much sense. It's supposed to be strong against indirect fire, but as it stands the most prominent counter for a mortar pit is killing it with artillery.

The other imbalance part of it is not only ISG kills the mortar pit (and other emplacements) too quickly at ease, but the ISG is often sitting beside the medic and keeps being constantly healed, which means it's absolutely impossible to counter barrage it. (not to mention if u try repairing the mortar pit, the sappers get instant wiped)

The other imbalance part of it is not only ISG kills the mortar pit (and other emplacements) too quickly at ease, but the ISG is often sitting beside the medic and keeps being constantly healed, which means it's absolutely impossible to counter barrage it. (not to mention if u try repairing the mortar pit, the sappers get instant wiped)

Yep, i've tried it with two sappers you can't win vs the ISG and not only do you end up losing your mortar pit that is very expensive you lose your RE too. Every time. ISG can just reinforce by truck. The mortar pit SHOULD win 1v1 straight up against the ISG. The ISG can be reinforced and can simply move out of the barrage to another location still giving it the ability to harass the mortar pit but not hard counter it. The ISG cost less, can move , and be reinforced it shouldnt win against a expensive immobile piece or the brits will never have indirect fire or any ways of countering mgs etc.

Incendiary shit is another problem it should only have a chance to decrew and NOT do any damage it already stops you from being able to repair the structure.

all i can say is:
good, the less emplacements we see in game, the better